Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
Meeting
with
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
August
3,
2004
Attendees
Deborah
Nagle,
Water
Permits
Division,
OWM
Jan
Pickrel,
Water
Permits
Division,
OWM
Greg
Schaner,
Water
Permits
Division,
OWM
Amy
Pickering,
Water
Permits
Division,
OWM
Jennifer
Chan,
Water
Permits
Division,
OWM
Ken
Munis,
Office
of
Policy
Economics
&
Innovation
Mindy
Gampel,
Office
of
Policy
Economics
&
Innovation
Fran
Dubrowski,
Attorney
for
NRDC
Nancy
Stoner,
NRDC
Lauren
Doerr,
Office
of
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Assurance
Laurie
Dubriel,
Office
of
Enforcement
&
Compliance
Assurance
Carey
Johnston,
Office
of
Science
&
Technology
Jim
Hanlon,
OWM
Purpose
and
Summary
of
Meeting
NRDC
met
with
OWM
to
outline
its
concerns
about
the
Pretreatment
Streamlining
Rule.
The
following
summarizes
the
discussion:

 
NRDC
indicated
that
data
suggests
that
pretreatment
program
requires
a
serious
level
of
effort
to
protect
the
early
pollutant
reduction
gains
of
the
program.
NRDC
expressed
concern
that
it
seems
like
less
has
been
done
in
this
program
compared
to
others.

 
NRDC
finds
it
difficult
to
determine
how
the
Streamlining
Rule
benefits
the
program
without
having
updated
data
on
how
the
program
is
doing.
It
seems
like
this
Rule
should
not
be
the
highest
priority
of
the
Pretreatment
Program.
Instead,
NRDC
indicated
that
maybe
EPA
needs
to
focus
on
how
program
is
working
and
how
it
could
be
improved.

 
pH
 
NRDC
believes
the
proposal
weakens
the
federal
rules
considerably,
and
that
low
pH
discharges
corrode
sewer
pipes.
They
also
reminded
OWM
that
EPA
has
not
responded
to
NRDC's
petition
for
rulemaking
to
raise
the
pH
limits.

 
Equivalent
Mass
Limits
 
This
proposed
provision
has
the
potential
to
allow
less
treatment.
Although
not
intended,
there
will
be
some
real
harms
from
this
provision.
EPA
has
not
done
sufficient
studies
of
the
impacts
of
mass
limits
on
the
wastestream,
sludge,
and
water
quality.
This
provision
asks
POTW
to
be
expert
in
making
complex
decisions
when
the
Industrial
User
approaches
it
to
give
them
mass
limits.
EPA
also
has
not
factored
in
the
resource
burden
of
accurately
determining
mass
limits.
Administrative
record
is
extraordinarily
weak
on
this
issue,
and
they
indicated
that
there
could
be
problems
with
OMB's
Data
Quality
Act,
depending
on
how
much
weight
we
place
on
the
scant
amount
of
data
that
supports
this
provision.
NRDC
believes
this
is
a
good
idea
that
is
being
brought
up
in
a
bad
way.
NRDC
suggested
that
better
ideas
would
include
looking
at
water
conservation
more
broadly
as
an
Agency
(
e.
g.,
PIRT),
looking
at
each
categorical
Pretreatment
Standard
and
its
relationship
to
water
conservation,
and
developing
case
studies.
NRDC
observed
that
the
Agency
does
not
know
how
to
identify
water
conservation,
and
suggested
that
the
primary
driver
behind
water
conservation
is
the
price
of
water,
not
the
concerns
about
water
pollution
control
compliance.
NRDC
indicated
that
it
is
not
clear
that
water
conservation
has
any
relationship
whatsoever
with
compliance
with
concentration­
based
limits.
They
critiqued
the
AMSA
data
as
only
showing
that
three
facilities
are
facing
this
issue.

 
Non­
Significant
CIU
 
NRDC
indicated
that
the
majority
of
States
were
opposed
to
this
change.
They
were
not
sure
that
this
could
be
considered
streamlining,
since
EPA
is
taking
requirements
that
impose
minimal
burden
and
making
a
dramatic
alteration.
NRDC
also
mentioned
that
there
is
insufficient
data
to
support
this
provision.
They
are
concerned
that
CIUs
will
be
taken
out
of
system
when
information
they
provide
could
be
useful.
NRDC
is
concerned
that
some
programs
have
a
high
concentration
of
these
de
minimis
dischargers;
basing
this
provision
on
flow
alone
disregards
the
real
impacts
of
these
discharges
that
may
be
concentrated
in
one
geographic
area.
Also,
NRDC
mentioned
that
if
EPA
removes
the
annual
inspection,
then
the
Control
Authority
does
not
have
an
ability
to
catch
some
bad
practices.
They
also
argued
that
it
is
not
fair
to
the
larger
Industrial
Users
to
exempt
the
small
facilities
from
the
program.

Attachment
NRDC
Talking
Points
on
Pretreatment
Standards
